Indiana Catholic Football Needs a Governor to Regulate Out of Control Football Dominance

[MHSTigerFan]

33 minutes ago, southend said:

Not so fast. They do hold a team state tournament every year that classes the teams. Very nice tournament and pretty exciting. 
This is not an IHSAA event. But includes teams from all over the state that qualify.  

Thanks for the life preserver.  I really appreciate it!

But I think I just need to man up and take my L here.  If it’s not the IHSAA, then it doesn’t count for what I’m talking about.

 

[Gipper]

On 8/12/2021 at 11:16 PM, DT said:

https://www.facebook.com/Hoosier-High-School-Football-107360041590757

I emailed the Pope, he’s on it.

[Titan32]

8 hours ago, MHSTigerFan said:

I’m predisposed to disfavor anything that is meant to bring about more equal outcomes.  I’m not even crazy about the idea of classes.  But given football is so based on numbers, it’s about the only sport where it makes some sense.  Other than that, I’d do away with classes in all other sports.  It makes sense that we had classes in football, and only football, for many years.

So I didn’t have any more sympathy for small schools (including my own) clamoring for multi-class basketball back when that happened.  I badly miss the single-class hoops tournament.  It was a great, great thing — done in by people who wanted to see the success spread around.

I mean, my alma mater isn’t nearly as successful as fellow 3Aer Chatard has been - and Dwenger and Cathedral before they moved up.  But it would never have occurred to me to push for rules to get them out of our way so we could have a better chance of a championship.

I encounter a lot of people with this mindset, and not only in sports.  And I have pretty much no respect for it in any context.  It’s a mindset for losers.

Fair enough, I see where you stand and respect your position.  But we will never agree at least with respect to high school football.  I support some competitive balance in team sports for children and it really has nothing to do with getting anyone "out of the way".  Amazingly I've done a considerable amount of winning with this philosophy......go figure (must be my protestant work ethic).  Enrollment type disparities are huge and shouldn't be ignored. Winning on an even playing field is much more rewarding in my view than winning when the deck is clearly stacked in one's favor, but then again maybe we poor publics can keep hoping we are the Hickory Huskers and embrace the joy that the "journey" brings.  

[foxbat]

8 hours ago, Goose Liver said:

How many of you have had milk delivered in a milk bottle/ a bit off topic.

Never had it personally, but I recall going to my grandmother's and asking her about the empty bottles on the front porch and she'd say "those belong to the milkman." 

[Irishman]

11 hours ago, Lysander said:

That, Sir, is genius.  
 

There needs to be a Calvinist team.

Did you see the Bloom County characters helped Hobbes find Calvin a couple weeks ago? Great stuff. 

[Irishman]

9 hours ago, Goose Liver said:

How many of you have had milk delivered in a milk bottle/ a bit off topic.

We did.....our youngest sister still has the metal box it was put in if we were not home. We used to love riding through the neighborhood on the truck as well. 

It was cool too, to scoop the cream from around the top of the bottle. 

[PHJIrish]

The milk box was a good place to put the extra door key too, in case you forgot yours.😉

[FastpacedO]

11 minutes ago, Irishman said:

We did.....our youngest sister still has the metal box it was put in if we were not home. We used to love riding through the neighborhood on the truck as well. 

It was cool too, to scoop the cream from around the top of the bottle. 

 

2 minutes ago, PHJIrish said:

The milk box was a good place to put the extra door key too, in case you forgot yours.😉

Dinosaurs I tell ya! Only kidding 2 of my favorite GID posters.

[Guest DT]

20 hours ago, Lysander said:

Serious question, just why in the world would Conference Indiana which is composed of two 6A and four 5A teams care whether the three 3A and one 4A teams in the Circle City Conference move up a class?  

Would it somehow make them feel less humiliated to be 7-17 (5 of those 7 Conference Indiana wins being against the Marsh Roncalli teams) v. smaller CCC teams if they could observe the fiction that those generally perfunctory beatings were NOW coming from three 4A teams and one 5A team?

I’m calling BS on your allegation that the CI is threatening to not play the CCC teams because they want “Catholics” to move up a class. 

Last year was a real bloodbath for CI vs CCC and CI schools can see how CCC schools continue to get bigger and better.  

I believe Bloomington South started this with the addition of Hammond Morton to their schedule.  How exactly did that come about?  Odd matchup.  

[Lysander]

5 hours ago, DT said:

Last year was a real bloodbath for CI vs CCC and CI schools can see how CCC schools continue to get bigger and better.  

I believe Bloomington South started this with the addition of Hammond Morton to their schedule.  How exactly did that come about?  Odd matchup.  

Huh….wut?!?  I didn’t realize Bloomington South (BS seems good shorthand…perfect, actually) was somehow part of a CI group mind.  

Go figure.  

You win….apparently.  Your “logic” is unassailable.

I do recall when, though, BS bailed last year at the VERY, VERY, VERY last minute v. Chatard with all those COVID kids (which gave the Trojans a chance to come out and play a legit 6A Merrillville team who WANTED to play football and went WAY out of their way to do so*).

I will admit, though, that when I listened to a local interview of a BS assistant coach a couple of years ago regarding playing Chatard before that year’s beatdown (can’t remember if it involved pre-game excuses interview or the post-game beatdown excuses interview) but I thought he did a good job of channeling Bull Connor….which makes me more than a little surprised that BS is playing Hammond Morton. 

Must just be a BS “Catholic” thing……not that anyone else here targets “Catholics” specifically.

 

 

 

*It still amazes me when watching that Merrillville/Chatard game last year at the line of scrimmage it literally looked like Chatard was a JV team playing the varsity (Merrillville).  With that, the final score was reversed with the JV kids pounding the varsity.

The difference between Central Indiana and NE Indiana?

[Lysander]

3 hours ago, Lysander said:

Huh….wut?!?  I didn’t realize Bloomington South (BS seems good shorthand…perfect, actually) was somehow part of a CI group mind.  

Go figure.  

You win….apparently.  Your “logic” is unassailable.

I do recall when, though, BS bailed last year at the VERY, VERY, VERY last minute v. Chatard with all those COVID kids (which gave the Trojans a chance to come out and play a legit 6A Merrillville team who WANTED to play football and went WAY out of their way to do so*).

I will admit, though, that when I listened to a local interview of a BS assistant coach a couple of years ago regarding playing Chatard before that year’s beatdown (can’t remember if it involved pre-game excuses interview or the post-game beatdown excuses interview) but I thought he did a good job of channeling Bull Connor….which makes me more than a little surprised that BS is playing Hammond Morton. 

Must just be a BS “Catholic” thing……not that anyone else here targets “Catholics” specifically.

 

 

 

*It still amazes me when watching that Merrillville/Chatard game last year at the line of scrimmage it literally looked like Chatard was a JV team playing the varsity (Merrillville).  With that, the final score was reversed with the JV kids pounding the varsity.

The difference between Central Indiana and NW Indiana?

 

[fenderbender]

6 hours ago, Lysander said:

Huh….wut?!?  I didn’t realize Bloomington South (BS seems good shorthand…perfect, actually) was somehow part of a CI group mind.  

Go figure.  

You win….apparently.  Your “logic” is unassailable.

I do recall when, though, BS bailed last year at the VERY, VERY, VERY last minute v. Chatard with all those COVID kids (which gave the Trojans a chance to come out and play a legit 6A Merrillville team who WANTED to play football and went WAY out of their way to do so*).

I will admit, though, that when I listened to a local interview of a BS assistant coach a couple of years ago regarding playing Chatard before that year’s beatdown (can’t remember if it involved pre-game excuses interview or the post-game beatdown excuses interview) but I thought he did a good job of channeling Bull Connor….which makes me more than a little surprised that BS is playing Hammond Morton. 

Must just be a BS “Catholic” thing……not that anyone else here targets “Catholics” specifically.

 

 

 

*It still amazes me when watching that Merrillville/Chatard game last year at the line of scrimmage it literally looked like Chatard was a JV team playing the varsity (Merrillville).  With that, the final score was reversed with the JV kids pounding the varsity.

The difference between Central Indiana and NE Indiana?

I had to go look up who Bull Conner was.

They cancelled last minute on Roncalli too.

 

[Bobref]

On 8/14/2021 at 8:25 AM, MHSTigerFan said:

But I don’t think the IHSAA could legally just bump up every P/P school.  All it would take is one institution to challenge such a move in court.  And I think they’d have a pretty strong EP claim — because it would be treating institutions differently based not on what they have or haven’t done, but on who they are.  And that’s pretty much always legally dubious.

Your legal analysis is half right. 

The Brentwood case could well result in the IHSAA being determined to be a “state actor” for these purposes, i.e., an agency of the government, and therefore the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment apply. 

But your conclusion that, as a result, an across-the-board 1 class bump for all P/Ps would be subject to a constitutional challenge is likely wrong. Of course, we wouldn’t know for sure unless it actually happened, but the language used by a federal judge in a 2018 case in which a public school sued the Alabama state association is pretty telling. Alabama instituted a 1 class bump for a number of private schools, based on historical success. In other words, a combination of a class bump and the success factor. The rule applied only to private schools, regardless of whether there were public schools with similar track records of success. In denying a preliminary injunction to prevent the rule from being implemented, here’s what the district judge said:

“Upon careful consideration of the parties’ arguments and exhibits, the Court concludes that preliminary injunctive relief is not appropriate at this time. A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, for which a movant bears a heavy burden of persuasion. In this case, St. Paul’s has failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. With respect to the equal protection claim, St. Paul’s has made an insufficient showing that the Association was motivated by “bare animus” against private schools; therefore, the challenged classification must be evaluated using deferential rational-basis review. Under this standard, the competitive balance rule is presumed constitutional, and must be upheld if any reasonably conceivable set of facts could provide a rational basis for it, even if the rule seems unwise and even though it works to a particular group’s disadvantage. The AHSAA has a legitimate interest in promoting competitive balance for its members. The challenged rule could rationally be viewed as furthering that legitimate interest. Indeed, the requisite rational basis may be found in data reflecting private schools’ disproportionate and ever-growing success in winning state championships, as well as in the numerous perceived advantages enjoyed by private schools relative to public schools. St. Paul’s has not shown a substantial likelihood that it can negate every one of those rational grounds for adoption of the competitive balance rule. St. Paul's Episcopal Sch. v. Ala. High Sch. Ath. Ass'n,  2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107003.

The lesson this case teaches us is that a state association’s rule designed to correct a perception of unfair competitive advantages on the part of public schools will be legal if it has any rational connection to solving the problem. Doesn’t have to be a perfect solution. Doesn’t have to be the best solution. Doesn’t even have to be a good solution. Just some rational connection to the problem. So, a 1 class bump for all P/Ps, while it is, IMO, unfair, unwise, and overkill for the perceived problem, is nonetheless legal under the US Constitution.

[MHSTigerFan]

9 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Your legal analysis is half right. 

The Brentwood case could well result in the IHSAA being determined to be a “state actor” for these purposes, i.e., an agency of the government, and therefore the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment apply. 

But your conclusion that, as a result, an across-the-board 1 class bump for all P/Ps would be subject to a constitutional challenge is likely wrong. Of course, we wouldn’t know for sure unless it actually happened, but the language used by a federal judge in a 2018 case in which a public school sued the Alabama state association is pretty telling. Alabama instituted a 1 class bump for a number of private schools, based on historical success. In other words, a combination of a class bump and the success factor. The rule applied only to private schools, regardless of whether there were public schools with similar track records of success. In denying a preliminary injunction to prevent the rule from being implemented, here’s what the district judge said:

“Upon careful consideration of the parties’ arguments and exhibits, the Court concludes that preliminary injunctive relief is not appropriate at this time. A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, for which a movant bears a heavy burden of persuasion. In this case, St. Paul’s has failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. With respect to the equal protection claim, St. Paul’s has made an insufficient showing that the Association was motivated by “bare animus” against private schools; therefore, the challenged classification must be evaluated using deferential rational-basis review. Under this standard, the competitive balance rule is presumed constitutional, and must be upheld if any reasonably conceivable set of facts could provide a rational basis for it, even if the rule seems unwise and even though it works to a particular group’s disadvantage. The AHSAA has a legitimate interest in promoting competitive balance for its members. The challenged rule could rationally be viewed as furthering that legitimate interest. Indeed, the requisite rational basis may be found in data reflecting private schools’ disproportionate and ever-growing success in winning state championships, as well as in the numerous perceived advantages enjoyed by private schools relative to public schools. St. Paul’s has not shown a substantial likelihood that it can negate every one of those rational grounds for adoption of the competitive balance rule. St. Paul's Episcopal Sch. v. Ala. High Sch. Ath. Ass'n,  2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107003.

The lesson this case teaches us is that a state association’s rule designed to correct a perception of unfair competitive advantages on the part of public schools will be legal if it has any rational connection to solving the problem. Doesn’t have to be a perfect solution. Doesn’t have to be the best solution. Doesn’t even have to be a good solution. Just some rational connection to the problem. So, a 1 class bump for all P/Ps, while it is, IMO, unfair, unwise, and overkill for the perceived problem, is nonetheless legal under the US Constitution.

If you read the decision, Alabama’s rule was not an across-the-board bump for any and all P/P schools.  It was based on success criteria.  And that is why the decision declared that it was not motivated by animus towards private schools.

This is from the decision:

Last November, the Alabama High School Athletic Association adopted a “competitive balance factor” rule to increase by one level the classification of certain private school members’ sports teams with a demonstrated track record of consistent, recent success.

Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see any success related criteria in DT’s proposal.  That would be critical to it passing EP.

[MHSTigerFan]

10 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

If you read the decision, Alabama’s rule was not an across-the-board bump for any and all P/P schools.  It was based on success criteria.  And that is why the decision declared that it was not motivated by animus towards private schools.

This is from the decision:

Last November, the Alabama High School Athletic Association adopted a “competitive balance factor” rule to increase by one level the classification of certain private school members’ sports teams with a demonstrated track record of consistent, recent success.

Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see any success related criteria in DT’s proposal.  That would be critical to it passing EP.

Reading more through the opinion, the CBF bump only applied to 10% of the PP schools in Alabama - because it was based on success criteria.

And this theme was repeated throughout the opinion.  A rule untethered to success criteria, such as the one proposed by DT, would almost certainly run afoul of equal protection.

[Lysander]

1 hour ago, fenderbender said:

I had to go look up who Bull Conner was.

They cancelled last minute on Roncalli too.

 

Yep.   They’re a class act.  

[MHSTigerFan]

34 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Your legal analysis is half right. 

The Brentwood case could well result in the IHSAA being determined to be a “state actor” for these purposes, i.e., an agency of the government, and therefore the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment apply. 

But your conclusion that, as a result, an across-the-board 1 class bump for all P/Ps would be subject to a constitutional challenge is likely wrong. Of course, we wouldn’t know for sure unless it actually happened, but the language used by a federal judge in a 2018 case in which a public school sued the Alabama state association is pretty telling. Alabama instituted a 1 class bump for a number of private schools, based on historical success. In other words, a combination of a class bump and the success factor. The rule applied only to private schools, regardless of whether there were public schools with similar track records of success. In denying a preliminary injunction to prevent the rule from being implemented, here’s what the district judge said:

“Upon careful consideration of the parties’ arguments and exhibits, the Court concludes that preliminary injunctive relief is not appropriate at this time. A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, for which a movant bears a heavy burden of persuasion. In this case, St. Paul’s has failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. With respect to the equal protection claim, St. Paul’s has made an insufficient showing that the Association was motivated by “bare animus” against private schools; therefore, the challenged classification must be evaluated using deferential rational-basis review. Under this standard, the competitive balance rule is presumed constitutional, and must be upheld if any reasonably conceivable set of facts could provide a rational basis for it, even if the rule seems unwise and even though it works to a particular group’s disadvantage. The AHSAA has a legitimate interest in promoting competitive balance for its members. The challenged rule could rationally be viewed as furthering that legitimate interest. Indeed, the requisite rational basis may be found in data reflecting private schools’ disproportionate and ever-growing success in winning state championships, as well as in the numerous perceived advantages enjoyed by private schools relative to public schools. St. Paul’s has not shown a substantial likelihood that it can negate every one of those rational grounds for adoption of the competitive balance rule. St. Paul's Episcopal Sch. v. Ala. High Sch. Ath. Ass'n,  2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107003.

The lesson this case teaches us is that a state association’s rule designed to correct a perception of unfair competitive advantages on the part of public schools will be legal if it has any rational connection to solving the problem. Doesn’t have to be a perfect solution. Doesn’t have to be the best solution. Doesn’t even have to be a good solution. Just some rational connection to the problem. So, a 1 class bump for all P/Ps, while it is, IMO, unfair, unwise, and overkill for the perceived problem, is nonetheless legal under the US Constitution.

One thing where the judge did deviate from what I’ve been saying is that their claim was tested under rational basis rather than strict scrutiny.  Rational basis is a lower burden than strict scrutiny.

There are 3 levels of test for these sorts of claims - rational basis is the lowest of the three.

He never really got into why.  But it’s neither here nor there, given the merits.

[Guest DT]

2 hours ago, MHSTigerFan said:

Reading more through the opinion, the CBF bump only applied to 10% of the PP schools in Alabama - because it was based on success criteria.

And this theme was repeated throughout the opinion.  A rule untethered to success criteria, such as the one proposed by DT, would almost certainly run afoul of equal protection.

Would you not consider the combined 67 state championships of Cathedral, Roncalli, Chatard, Luers, LCC, Dwenger and Ritter to be an example of "success?"

[Guest DT]

What I am suggesting here is that Indiana act in a progressive manner and take the "next step" necessary to reign in out of control PP post season domination.

I believe it will strengthen the game over the long run, improve competitive balance, and possibly flush out some programs that dont need to be playing high school varsity football in the first place.  

 

[Titan32]

2 hours ago, Bobref said:

The lesson this case teaches us is that a state association’s rule designed to correct a perception of unfair competitive advantages on the part of public schools will be legal if it has any rational connection to solving the problem. Doesn’t have to be a perfect solution. Doesn’t have to be the best solution. Doesn’t even have to be a good solution. Just some rational connection to the problem. So, a 1 class bump for all P/Ps, while it is, IMO, unfair, unwise, and overkill for the perceived problem, is nonetheless legal under the US Constitution.

THIS.  Isn't the purpose of the IHSAA to solve problems for their membership, what they perceive to be the greater good?  Surely some of our P/P friends are tired of reaping the unfair advantages associated with disparities in enrollment type.

[Footballking16]

35 minutes ago, DT said:

Would you not consider the combined 67 state championships of Cathedral, Roncalli, Chatard, Luers, LCC, Dwenger and Ritter to be an example of "success?"

Does an automatic one class bump really solve things? The SF has essentially been an automatic one class bump for many privates since it's inception and when you cut off the head of one snake the next one arises. Does anyone not think Roncalli and Dwenger are the odds on favorite to win 5A most years with Cathedral going to 6A? Chatard to win 4A with Dwenger and Roncalli in 5A? And so on and so on? 

[Guest DT]

2 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

Does an automatic one class bump really solve things? The SF has essentially been an automatic one class bump for many privates since it's inception and when you cut off the head of one snake the next one arises. Does anyone not think Roncalli and Dwenger are the odds on favorite to win 5A most years with Cathedral going to 6A? Chatard to win 4A with Dwenger and Roncalli in 5A? And so on and so on? 

The SF/1 Bump combo would push Roncalli and Cathedral up to 5A with an opportunity to play their way up to 6A.  We all know that both schools are 6A level programs and given the direction of the game today, will likely remain there.  

[Footballking16]

15 minutes ago, DT said:

The SF/1 Bump combo would push Roncalli and Cathedral up to 5A with an opportunity to play their way up to 6A.  We all know that both schools are 6A level programs and given the direction of the game today, will likely remain there.  

Roncalli and Cathedral would be in the same 5A sectional and thus highly unlikely they would simultaneously be playing in 6A.  

[Guest DT]

1 minute ago, Footballking16 said:

Roncalli and Cathedral would be in the same 5A sectional and thus highly unlikely they would simultaneously be playing in 6A.  

Not sure about that.  5A is pretty spread out in Indy metro and good chance IHSAA could keep the two apart in the first round.  

[Footballking16]

16 minutes ago, DT said:

5A is pretty spread out in Indy metro and good chance IHSAA could keep the two apart in the first round.

Lol. If Cathedral and Roncalli are in the same tournament you can rest be assured they are in the same sectional and playing each other in the first round. Tale as old as time. Geographically, there isn't a school closer to Cathedral than Roncalli at the 5A level.